DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact of Extended Burnup on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impact of Extended Burnup on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle IAEA-TECDOC-699 Impact of extended burnup on the nuclear fuel cycle Proceedings of an Advisory Group Meeting held Vienna,in December2-5 1991 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY April 1993 The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series. However, microfiche copie f thesso e reportobtainee b n sca d from INIS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse 5 0 10 P.Ox Bo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders shoul accompaniee db prepaymeny db f Austriao t n Schillings 100,- in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons orderee whicb y dhma separately fro INIe mth S Clearinghouse. IMPACT OF EXTENDED BURNUP ON THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE IAEA, VIENNA, 1993 IAEA-TECDOC-699 ISSN 1011-4289 Printed by the IAEA in Austria April 1993 FOREWORD Currently, burnup extension is one of the most advanced and intensively studied areas in fuel technology and management worldwide. The average design discharge burnups that commercialle ar y availabl range BWRr eth fo PWR d n ei san 35-4e sar 5- MW-d/k40 d an gU MW-d/k0 5 , respectivelygU . Economic incentive exisy r extendinma sfo t g burnup even further t leasa MW-d/k0 o t ,6 t . gU Burnup extension affects several important stages of the fuel cycle and concerns the whole nuclear fuel cycle industry. Increase of burnup reflects on the requirements for natural uranium, enrichment and fuel fabrication, reactor core configuration and its control, fuel performance and the back end of the fuel cycle, such as spent fuel handling, transportation, treatmen storaged an t . In view of the importance of high burnup for water reactor fuel utilization, the IAEA convened technical committee meetings (in 1981, 1984 and 1990) in the framework of the International Working Grou Waten po r Reactor Fuel Performanc Technologd ean y which consists of representatives from 24 countries and three international organizations. Additionally, around 50% of the presentations at the IAEA Symposium on Improvements in Water Reactor Fuel Technology and Utilization in 1986 were related to subjects on high burnup. The Water Reactor Fuel Extended Burnup Study (WREBUS) started in 1988 and was completed in 1991. It was the first internationally conducted study of its kind involving eleven IAEA Member States. The findings of the study have been published as IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 343 in 1992. These proceedings present national approache extendeo st d burnu experiencd pan e subjecte outlind th n an i evaluatiot n ea ,ar futur e state th th f ef eo n o trend fielde th .n si The IAEA wishes to thank all the participants of the Advisory Group Meeting for their valuable contribution and especially the Chairman, Mr. P. Lang, and the Session Chairmen, Messrs . DuflouP . GriffithJ Hesketh,K e d IAEan Th sA . officer responsible th r fo e organizatio meetine th f preparationd o gan f thino s documen. SukhanovG . Mr s i t , Nuclear Materials and Fuel Cycle Technology Section, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management. EDITORIAL NOTE In preparing this material for the press, staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency have mounted and paginated the original manuscripts as submitted by the authors and given some attention to the presentation. The views expressed in the papers, the statements made and the general style adopted are the responsibility of the named authors. The views do not necessarily reflect those of the governments of the Member States or organizations under whose auspices the manuscripts were produced. thisin The bookuse of particular designations countriesof territoriesor does implynot any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention specificof companies theirof or products brandor names does implynot any endorsement recommendationor IAEA. partthe the of on Authors are themselves responsible for obtaining the necessary permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources. Throughout textthe names Memberof States retainedare theyas were when textthe was compiled. CONTENTS SUMMAR ADVISORF YO Y GROUP MEETING 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................7 . IMPAC2 EXTENDEF TO FUEE DTH L F BURNUFRONCYCLE 7 O D TH . ETN . EN P O 2.1. Impac extendef o t d burnu resourcn po e utilization .....................7 . 2.2. Impac highef o t r enrichmen fronfacilitien d o t en t s .....................8 . 2.2.1. Light water reactors ....................................... 8 2.2.2. Heavy water reactors .....................................8 . 2.3. Impact of fuel design changes required for extended burnup on front end facilities .............................................. 8 2.4. Impac f extendeo t d burnuqualite th f n plutoniupyo o recycled man d uranium an associaten do d facilities ......................................8 . 3. IN-REACTOR ISSUES ............................................9 . 3.1. Nuclear design ...............................................9 . 3.1.1. Impact on core characteristics ................................ 9 3.1.2. Impact on nuclear fuel design ................................ 9 3.1.3. Impac fuen o t l management strategie loadind san g patterns .........0 1 . 3.1.4. Operational flexibility ...................................... 10 3.1.5. Extensio codef no extendeo st d burnup conditions ................0 1 . 3.2. Fuel performance .............................................0 1 . 3.2.1. Corrosion .............................................. 10 3.2.2. Fission gas accumulation and release .......................... 11 3.2.3. Pellet clad interaction ...................................... 11 3.2.4. Fuel reliability ..........................................1 1 . 3.3. Mechanical design ............................................2 1 . 3.3.1. Structural design impacts ................................... 12 3.3.2. Impact on materials ....................................... 12 3.4. Thermalhydraulics ............................................. 12 3.5. Mixed oxide fuels .............................................. 12 . IMPAC4 EXTENDEF TO FUEE TH LDF 3 CYCL BURNUO 1 BAC E D . TH KE.. EN N PO 4.1. General issues ................................................ 13 4.1.1. Criticality ..............................................3 1 . 4.1.2. Heat output ............................................. 13 4.1.3. Radioactivity ............................................ 13 4.1.4. Accurac f calculateyo d actinid fissiod ean n product parameters .......3 1 . 4.2. Storage ....................................................3 1 . 4.3. Transport .................................................... 14 4.4. Reprocessing ................................................4 1 . 4.5. Spent fuel conditioning and disposal in once-through cycle ................ 14 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 14 PAPERS PRESENTE ADVISORE TH T DA Y GROUP MEETING Development slightln si y enriched uraniu power mfo r reactor fue Argentinn i l a ......9 1 . J.A. Casario, LA. Alvarez Extended burnu CANDpn i U ..........................................3 2 . P.O. Boczar, J. Griffiths, I.J. Hastings Necessity for and feasibility of burnup extension in China's nuclear industry ......... 33 Zhenglun Liu Present status of the nuclear fuel cycle in the CSFR .......................... 37 F. Pazdera Near-term plans towards increased discharge burnups in Finnish power reactors: Review of background aspects and current activities ........................ 44 KelppeS. Compatibility of extended burnup with French fuel cycle installations .............. 49 P. Demoulins, P. Saverot Extensio burnuf no Indiapn i n PHWRs ...................................7 5 . H.D. Purandare, P.D. Krishnani, K.R. Srinivasan Burnup extension plan of BWR fuel and its impact on the fuel cycle in Japan ........ 64 A. Toba High burnups for water reactor fuels - A UK perspective ....................... 83 K. Hesketh Effect f extendeso d burnunucleae th n po r fuel cycle .........................7 8 . P.M. Lang Improvemen fueR fuel e WE effecburnus f th it l o tcycln d o t pan e ...............1 9 . Yu.K. Bibilashvili, G.L. Lunin, V.D. Onufriev, V.N. Proselkov Burnup as a safety parameter for handling transport packages and storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel .............................................. 99 V.l. Kulikov, N.S. Tikhonov, G.Ya. Philippov, A.I. Ivanyuk nucleae th f o Impac bacre d fueth ken n lo t cycle ..........................4 10 . H. Bairiot List of Participants ................................................. 111 SUMMAR ADVISORF YO Y GROUP MEETING 1. INTRODUCTION The Advisory Group Meeting was held in Vienna from 2 to 5 December 1991, to review, analyse discusd an , effecte sth f burnuso p extensio botn i h lighheavd an t y water reactor l aspectal fue e n so th l f cycleso . Twenty experts from thirteen countries participated in this meeting. consensuThera s ewa s that both economi environmentad can l benefite sar driving forces toward the achievement of higher burnups and that the present trend of bumup extensio expectee b y nma continueo dt economie Th . c aspect r LWRsfo s have been assesse resulte th d sd an publishe IAEe th Adn i Technical Report 1992n i s3 Serie34 . sNo Batch average bumup levels were considered to be feasible goals, achievable within the next 10-20 years. For light water reactors burnup would be extended to 55-60 GW-d/t U for PWRs and WWER 1000 reactors and to 45-50
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vver and Rbmk Cross Section Libraries for Origen-Arp
    VVER AND RBMK CROSS SECTION LIBRARIES FOR ORIGEN-ARP Germina Ilas, Brian D. Murphy, and Ian C. Gauld, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA Introduction An accurate treatment of neutron transport and depletion in modern fuel assemblies characterized by heterogeneous, complex designs, such as the VVER or RBMK assembly configurations, requires the use of advanced computational tools capable of simulating multi-dimensional geometries. The depletion module TRITON [1], which is part of the SCALE code system [2] that was developed and is maintained at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), allows the depletion simulation of two- or three-dimensional assembly configurations and the generation of burnup-dependent cross section libraries. These libraries can be saved for subsequent use with the ORIGEN-ARP module in SCALE. This later module is a faster alternative to TRITON for fuel depletion, decay, and source term analyses at an accuracy level comparable to that of a direct TRITON simulation. This paper summarizes the methodology used to generate cross section libraries for VVER and RBMK assembly configurations that can be employed in ORIGEN-ARP depletion and decay simulations. It briefly describes the computational tools and provides details of the steps involved. Results of validation studies for some of the libraries, which were performed using isotopic assay measurement data for spent fuel, are provided and discussed. Cross section libraries for ORIGEN-ARP Methodology The TRITON capability to perform depletion simulations for two-dimensional (2-D) configurations was implemented by coupling of the 2-D transport code NEWT with the point depletion and decay code ORIGEN-S. NEWT solves the transport equation on a 2-D arbitrary geometry grid by using an SN approach, with a treatment of the spatial variable that is based on an extended step characteristic method [3].
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Burnup and Separation Efficiency on Uranium Utilization and Radiotoxicity
    INL/CON-10-20154 PREPRINT The Effect of Burnup and Separation Efficiency on Uranium Utilization and Radiotoxicity Eleventh Information Exchange Meeting on Partitioning and Transmutation Samuel Bays Steven Piet November 2010 This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or proceedings. Since changes may be made before publication, this preprint should not be cited or reproduced without permission of the author. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the United States Government or the sponsoring agency. THE EFFECT OF BURNUP AND SEPARATION EFFICIENCY ON URANIUM UTILIZATION AND RADIOTOXICITY Samuel Bays, Steven Piet Idaho National Laboratory, United States Abstract This paper addresses two fundamental cradle-to-grave issues of fuel cycle sustainability. The two primary issues of interest are efficient use of the natural uranium resource (cradle), and management of nuclear waste radiotoxicity (grave). Both uranium utilization and radiotoxicity are directly influenced by the burnup achieved during irradiation (transmutation related) and where applicable the separation efficiency (partitioning related). Burnup influences the in-growth of transuranics by breeding them into the fuel cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fuel Cycles Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Clean Power Value-Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Wind Power ENERGY Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Nuclear Fuel Cycles Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Introduction and Background The Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC) is defined as the total set of operations required to produce fission energy and manage the associated nuclear materials. It can have different attributes, including the extension of natural resources, or the minimization of waste disposal requirements. The NFC, as depicted in Figure 4.O.1, is comprised of a set of operations that include the extraction of uranium (U) resources from the earth (and possibly from seawater), uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication, use of the fuel in reactors, interim storage of used nuclear fuel, the optional recycle of the used fuel, and the final disposition of used fuel and waste forms from the recycling processes. Thorium (Th) fuel cycles have been proposed also, but have not been commercially implemented). Figure 4.O.1 Schematic of the uranium based Nuclear Fuel Cycle 1 Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Clean Power TA 4.O: Nuclear Fuel Cycles The nuclear fuel cycle is often grouped into three classical components (front-end, reactor, and back-end): Front End: The focus of the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is to deliver fabricated fuel to the reactor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Burnup Dependence of Light Water Reactor Spent Fuel Oxidation
    GNA bNLI-I MOL.19980810.0383 PNNL-11 929 Nationail Labolratory Opeate Batelb fornimthe"• The Burnup Dependence of Light Water Reactor Spent Fuel Oxidation B. D. Hanson July 1998 z"D z co Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830 ' DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTEELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under ContractDE-ACO6-76RLO 1830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reactors and Plutonium Production
    Nuclear Reactors and Plutonium Production ISIS Course-Week 4 October 23, 2014 Nuclear Reactors • A nuclear reactor is an apparatus or machine in which fissile material can be made to undergo a controlled, self-sustaining nuclear reaction with the consequent release of energy. The Basic Parts of a Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnox • Fuel region • Heat removal equipment • Control system • Refueling capability Purposes of Reactors • Nuclear reactors are used for civilian purposes to – generate electricity – produce heat via steam – produce isotopes for medical, industrial, or research purposes – conduct research – propel surface ships, such as ice-breakers • Nuclear reactors are also used for military purposes to – produce plutonium for nuclear weapons – produce tritium for nuclear weapons – propel military submarines and surface ships – power aircraft and rockets (abandoned) Classification of Reactors • Power reactors – typically civilian, almost all now generate electricity. Some produced steam for district heating. Typically make large quantities of reactor-grade plutonium. • Research reactors – typically civilian aimed at making isotopes or conducting research. – In non-proliferation context, ostensibly civilian research reactors have also been used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons, e.g. Cirus and Dhruva reactors in India. The misuse of the Taiwan research reactor was planned. Is the Arak reactor in Iran in this category, ostensibly a civilian research reactor but in reality it would also have produced plutonium for nuclear weapons? • Propulsion reactors – either civilian or military • Production reactors – almost always military and dedicated to plutonium and tritium production for nuclear weapons, which means that the goal is the production of weapon- grade plutonium. Reactors • Reactor types vary greatly, some are far simpler to build than others • Production reactors and research reactors are the simplest to build.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Burnup and Enrichment Extension Preparation Strategy
    1 APPENDIX A: FUEL BURNUP AND ENRICHMENT EXTENSION 2 PREPARATION STRATEGY 3 4 Based on stakeholder interactions, the NRC staff is aware of industry’s plans to request higher 5 fuel burnup limits along with the deployment of near-term ATF concepts. Additionally, the staff 6 expects that the extension of fuel burnup limits, and the economic drive to achieve those 7 burnups, will result in requests to increase fuel enrichments to greater than the current standard 8 of 5 weight percent U235. Therefore, the staff is proactively assessing the current knowledge 9 and experimental database associated with extending both burnup and enrichment for light 10 water reactor (LWR) fuels. This plan focuses on the strategy to prepare the NRC for review of 11 future licensing actions in which industry requests to go beyond current licensed limits with 12 burnups up to ~75 GWd/MTU rod-average and enrichments up to ~8 weight percent U235. Staff 13 will continue to engage with industry and the fuel vendors on these topics and adjust this 14 strategy as industry plans for higher burnup and increased enrichments evolve. 15 16 Overview of Preparatory Activities 17 18 As with other ATF activities related to advanced cladding and fuel materials, the staff has 19 grouped its burnup and enrichment preparatory activities into four tasks. The highlights of each 20 task are briefly described below; subsequent sections within this appendix describe these tasks 21 in greater detail. 22 23 Task 1: Regulatory Framework: In-Reactor Performance 24 • Participate in coordinated PIRT exercises on in-reactor performance of fuels with 25 increased enrichment under a wide array of conditions, performance -based metrics, and 26 analytical criteria to ensure acceptable performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Burnup Determinaton of Nuclear Fuel
    MASS SPECTROSCOPY Original Papers Vol17.No4,December1969 Burnup Determinaton of Nuclear Fuel KIYOSHI I NOUE,*KAORU TANIGUCHI,*TOSHIFUMI MURATA,** HIDEHIKO MITSUI*AND AKIRA DOI* (Received August16,1969) A general description of burnup determining experiments is presented for making vivid a part of mass spectrometry,in comparison of results obtained from radiochemical and nondestructive analyses. Specimen of nuclear fuel was grains of uranium dioxide irradiated in a nuclear reactor for about200 days,and its burnup was found to be8,000MWD/T with sufficient consistency in the experimental results. 1.Introduction method is included in the first approach, Extensive studies on nuclear fuel and the second approach includes radio burnup analysis have been made in the chemical and nondestructive methods. past,since burnup is one of fundamental Both of the radiochemical and nondes quantities required in a fuel research structive methods essentially measure program.Burnup is also an important radioactivities of fission products formed quantity for design and operation of in a nuclear fuel.The former has an ac power reactors from a standpoint of ceptable precision with low cost and safety as well as operability. simple procedure,but the development A wide variety of methods have of a good method for the later remains been developed to determine burnup of an engineering target. irradiated fuel.Principal procedures This paper presents a general de used so far have been based on meas scription on the burnup determining ex ments of: periments for a uranium dioxide fuel (1)Changes in isotopic composition of specimen.Comparing the mass spectro fissioning elements in a nuclear metry method with the other methods, fuel brought about during irradia the contribution it can make to the tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Burnup Credit Criticality Safety Analysis Using STARBUCS
    ACTIVITIES OF THE OECD/NEA EXPERT GROUP ON ASSAY DATA FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL I. C. Gauld Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370 USA [email protected] Y. Rugama OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 12, Bd des Iles – 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France Management of spent nuclear fuel is a key issue for many NEA member countries. In nuclear criticality safety, the decision of many countries to advance burnup credit as part of their licensing strategy has heightened recent interest in experimental data needed to validate computer codes used in burnup credit calculations. This paper discusses recent activities of an Expert Group on assay data, formed under the OECD/NEA/NSC/WPNCS (Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety) to help coordinate isotopic assay data activities and facilitate international collaboration between NEA member countries developing or implementing burnup credit methodologies. Recent activities of the Expert Group are described, focusing on the planned expansion of the Spent Fuel Isotopic Composition Database (SFCOMPO), and preparation of a state-of-the-art report on assay data that includes sections on recommended radiochemical analysis methods, techniques, and lessons learned from previous experiments. I. INTRODUCTION Management of spent nuclear fuel is a key issue for many Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) member countries. As interim storage facilities in many countries reach their design capacities, the need to optimize spent fuel storage is becoming an increasingly important issue to managing fuel cycle costs while reducing associated risks. In nuclear criticality safety, the decision by many countries to advance burnup credit as part of their licensing strategy has heightened recent interest in measurement data that are needed to validate computer code calculations for a burnup credit methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactor Fuel Isotopics and Code Validation for Nuclear Applications
    ORNL/TM-2014/464 Reactor Fuel Isotopics and Code Validation for Nuclear Applications Matthew W. Francis Charles F. Weber Marco T. Pigni Approved for public release; Ian C. Gauld distribution is unlimited. September 2014 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy (DOE) SciTech Connect. Website http://www.osti.gov/scitech/ Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Assessment of Spent Fuel Assemblies Removed from Shutdown Rbmk-1000 Power Units for Reburning in Operating Power Units
    PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLIES REMOVED FROM SHUTDOWN RBMK-1000 POWER UNITS FOR REBURNING IN OPERATING POWER UNITS B. Kanashov, I. Kuzmin, A. Kostyuchenko, S. Perepelkin, V. Chesanov (Sosny R&D Company) INTRODUCTION The scheduled operating life-time of RBMK-1000 reactor units, that is 30 years, has already expired. Comprehensive analysis of the reactor conditions allowed to extend the operating life-time of RBMK units up to 45 years [1]. The additional time to operate each reactor will depend on its peculiarities, however, we can predict the NPP will shut down its reactors in the order of their commissioning. Table 1. RBMK units decommissioning schedule subject to their extended operating life-time NPP Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Leningrad 2018 2020 2024 2026 Kursk 2020 2023 2028 2030 Smolensk 2027 2030 2035 – A peculiarity of the RBMK reactors is non-stop core refueling. On the average, one burnt-up fuel assembly (FA) is replaced for a fresh one daily. Sometimes the irradiated assemblies that have not reached the maximum design burnup are reinserted into the core, which already contains the assemblies of different burnups. FA distribution in terms of burnup depends on the duration of the previous period. If the reactor was loaded with the same type fuel with approximately the same speed, the FA burnup distribution in the core does not change. In this case, the refueling is steady-state. Over the period of RBMK reactors operation, the enrichment of fresh fuel has experienced a staged growth. Nowadays, RBMK-1000 units are practically converted to uranium-erbium fuel enriched to 2.8 % in U-235 with erbium content 0.6 %.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances by the Integral Fast Reactor Program De91 011174
    I A // / A / ANL/CP--71374 ADVANCES BY THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR PROGRAM DE91 011174 M. J. Lineberry, D. R. Pedersen, of the EBR-11 reactor reactor with a uranium alloy metallic L. C. Waiters, and J. E. Cahalan fuel. ll Argonne National Laboratory f 9700 S. Cass Avenue The IFR safety approach for the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Argonne, Illinois 60439 concept capitalizes on the characteristics of metallic fuels and of pool-type liquid metal reactors to provide enhanced ABSTRACT safety margins. The fundamental safety approach guiding The advances by the Integral Fast Reactor Program at the IFR program is: Argonne National Laboratory are the subject of this paper. ; 1. A simple, economic, high quality fuel system must The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is an advanced liquid- ', be developed which will allow normal operation of metal-cooled reactor concept being developed at Argonne j reprocessed fuel with minimal fuel failures. National Laboratory. The advances stressed in the paper : 2. The metallic fuel system must be tolerant of fuel include fuel irradiation performance, improved passive , failures and local faults. safety, ^nd the development of a prototype fuel cycle ' 3. The reactor design must be such that for any system facility. failure, including those in the balance of plant, no active systems have to operate to maintain the INTRODUCTION reactor in a safe state. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) (Ref. 1) is an advanced 4. Even though the reactor can achieve passive shut- liquid-metal-cooled reactor concept being developed at down for any system failure, the reactor should be Axgonne National Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • HTR-N Plutonium Cell Burnup Benchmark: Definition, Results & Intercomparison
    PHYSOR 2004 -The Physics of Fuel Cycles and Advanced Nuclear Systems: Global Developments Chicago, Illinois, April 25-29, 2004, on CD-ROM, American Nuclear Society, Lagrange Park, IL. (2004) HTR-N Plutonium Cell Burnup Benchmark: Definition, Results & Intercomparison J.C. Kuijper 1, N. Cerullo5, F. Damian2, J.L. Kloosterman4, G. Lomonaco5, J. Oppe1, X. Raepsaet2, H.J. Ruetten3 1NRG, Petten, the Netherlands 2CEA, Saclay, France 3FZJ, Juelich, Germany 4IRI, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands 5Universita di Pisa, Pisa, Italy In order to obtain a further validation of several reactor physics code systems to be used for the analysis of High Temperature gas-cooled Reactors (HTR) for plutonium burning applications, a HTR plutonium cell burnup calculational benchmark exercise was defined. For simplicity, the benchmark configuration only consists of a single spherical, 6 cm diameter HTR (“pebble”) fuel element containing coated (PuO2) fuel particles. The requested calculations concerned the tracking of the multiplication factor, nuclide densities in the fuel particles and other relevant parameters during the irradiation of the fuel element at constant power up to the unusually high burnup of 800 MWd/kgHM. Generally a good agreement is found between the results of 3 out of 4 participants, representing 4 out of 5 code systems. The remaining differences in results between the 3 participants can be largely attributed to differences in the modeling of the reaction paths, which are amplified by the unusually high flux levels typical to this particular benchmark. KEYWORDS: HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR, PLUTONIUM BURNING, HTR-N, EUROPEAN UNION FIFTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAM 1. Introduction In the “HTR-N” and “HTR-N1” projects of the European Fifth Framework Program [1-3] investigations are being made concerning the feasibility of burning plutonium in “High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTR)”.
    [Show full text]